User talk:Mvcg66b3r/Archives/2017/August

Archives

KATV edit

Thank you for your polite comment about my KATV edit. Is your concern with the accuracy of the (sourced) claim that, as a Sinclair Broadcast Group owned station, KATV is now obligated to slant coverage in a conservative direction and include externally-produced conservative opinion pieces? Or is it with the way I described it? Or did I give improper weight? Are you suggesting this slant is irrelevant regardless of significant news coverage?

Do you have a suggestion as to how to include this information in a better way than my initial edit? For a deep-dive into this issue, you may find John Oliver video informative, as I have (it may not be available in your country, apologies.) My original sources: [1] and [2], which are also found in the Sinclair article. Cheers. Ofus (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at KATV. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you for the disruptive editing warning, but you are incorrect that it is diruptive editing. These changes was discussions at the TVS project talk page. Spshu (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at KATV shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Spshu (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]